get_niagara_system_info

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by fully spelling out the return structure (system_name, emitter_count, num_user_parameters, warmup_time, user_parameters list), which matters here because there is no output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by the return shape. No filler; every clause carries information, though the return block is slightly verbose for a single read tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only metadata tool whose safety is declared via annotations and whose return shape is undocumented by any output schema, the description supplies the return structure needed to call it correctly. Only the sibling-differentiation gap remains.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single system_path param already includes format examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Reads metadata for a UNiagaraSystem') and enumerates the exact fields returned (emitter count, warmup time, user parameters). Clear purpose, though it does not distinguish itself from similar siblings like get_niagara_system_properties or get_niagara_system_warmup_time.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No statement of when to use this tool versus the many overlapping Niagara siblings (get_niagara_system_properties, get_niagara_user_parameter, get_niagara_emitter_handles). The agent gets the purpose but no routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.